## Facts

- Hutchison developed an allegedly proprietary process for making skinless fried chicken.
- During negotiations, Hutchison disclosed information about the process to KFC’s agents under written confidentiality agreements.
- KFC declined to purchase the process and later marketed a skinless fried chicken product.
- Hutchison sued KFC in federal court under Nevada’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act, alleging misappropriation of a trade secret.
- The claimed “secret” process was described as the general steps of cutting, skinning, marinating, dipping/breading, and frying chicken.
- Potentially protectable details (e.g., batter or marinade recipes, cooking temperatures, oil contents) were identified as possible trade secret components, but Hutchison did not allege misappropriation of those specifics.

## Issues

1. Whether the information Hutchison disclosed under confidentiality constituted a protectable “trade secret” under Nevada’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
2. Whether summary judgment for KFC was proper where the alleged trade secret consisted of general cooking steps that were generally known or readily ascertainable.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for KFC.
- The court held that the material Hutchison disclosed in confidence did not constitute a protectable trade secret.
- Because the disclosed information was generally known or readily ascertainable by proper means, Hutchison could not establish the secrecy element required for trade secret protection.
- Without a trade secret, there could be no misappropriation, making summary judgment appropriate.

## Legal Principles

- Under Nevada’s UTSA, a trade secret must derive independent economic value from not being generally known and not being readily ascertainable by proper means.
- Confidential disclosure agreements do not substitute for proving that the disclosed information meets the statutory definition of a trade secret.
- A plaintiff bears the burden of showing the existence of a trade secret; broad descriptions of ordinary, industry-standard steps do not suffice.
- When the asserted subject matter is not a trade secret as a matter of law, a misappropriation claim fails and summary judgment may be granted.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that Hutchison’s asserted process was a general, commonly known method of preparing skinless fried chicken rather than secret, economically valuable information, so Hutchison could not prove a trade secret or misappropriation under Nevada’s UTSA and KFC was entitled to summary judgment.


Hutchison v. KFC Corp., 51 F.3d 280 (9th Cir. 1995)